Imposing ignorance on the knowledgeable

Imagine you have nightmares. You've been a victim or perpetrator of war or some other trauma, and you can't sleep at night. Sleeping during the day is fine, the warmth, sounds and sunlight keep your head in a happy place.
You have a conversation with your employer, and he concludes that moving you to nightshift would allow him to offer 24/7 customer support, and would add 50% more value to the business than your current roster.

He'd offer you 150% of your present wage to move to night shift, a propostion you'd readily accept; but your union has negotiated a requirement that night shift staff be paid at 200% their nominal rate, making your proposed shift change untenable.
The union didn't anticipate your particular set of circumstances when it negotiated this condition, since only the actual parties to a specific proposal are familiar with their own capabilities, priorities and requirements.
The union established a rule based in ignorance. They were trying to help you, but their requirement only reduces your options, so you leave the union, pack a thermos of Mocha Kenya, and happily settle in for your first night shift.
Your employer is better off, his customers are better off, and you're better off.

....He'd offer you 150% of your present wage to move to night shift, a propostion you'd readily accept; but a government department has legislated a requirement that night shift staff be paid at 200% their nominal rate, making your proposed shift change untenable.
They did so based in ignorance. They were trying to help, but this requirement only reduces your options. You can't simply cancel your subscription to the law; you both know that if you tried, the business would be shut down immedately, so you stay on day shift.
Your employer is worse off, his customers are worse off, and you're worse off.

There is no shortage of idiots who believe they can help you by gluing down some of your bargaining chips, so ending an unsatisfactory relationship is often required to stop the ignorance of a well intentioned rule writer from preventing a good outcome he didn't anticipate.
While nobody's stopping you from leaving the union, somebody's definitely stopping you from leaving the government. He has a gun and he hasn't thought about any of this.

People obey politicians because they don't want the police to lock them up. This means that the average policeman has almost no understanding of the opportunities he ruins and the products he prevents just by pulling on the uniform.
His willingness to impose the ignorance of politicians on people who are hobbled by it, is a result of his own ignorance. He can't see the beneficial outcomes he prevents because he's so rarely called upon to actively prevent them. When people obey stupid laws without him having to force them to, he misses an opportunity to see how horrid and counterproductive those laws are, and to hold himself to account for his complicity in their dreadful effectiveness.

Lets lets look at another example.

Justin is a car designer, and he wants to build really safe cars. Based on data from thousands of crashes, he's decided to make agile cars, with very responsive steering and a short stopping distance, with a focus on avoiding collisions. He starts investigating options for light, suitable materials but soon discovers a roadblock.
In 1983, thousands of kilometres away, somebody with no knowledge of, or talent for car design decided that strangers needed the benefit of his wisdom, and wrote a rule that all cars sold in his country need to feature a passenger area capable of withstanding a collision with a solid object at 80kph. This bureaucrat didn't anticipate any reason why this might be a bad idea, and congratulated himself on imposing a minimum standard on current and future car designers; after all, somebody had to think of the children.
Justin understands that design is a series of trade offs. So while his desired material isn't strong enough to meet the standard, its light enough that, assuming the brakes were engaged 20m before the collision, his vehicle's superior stopping distance would mean a collision speed of 50kph instead of 80kph, with a better outcome for the driver, passengers and crucially, the object or person being hit by the vehicle.

Justin could petition the current bureaucrat to amend the standard, but it'll never happen. Approving the change might prevent a hundred crashes, but the first time a motorist dies in a light car, his career is over.
Amending the standard would benefit millions, but to the guy who makes the call, it isn't worth the risk.
So Justin decides to try and ignore the ignorant public servant; goes to the bank to raise capital to build his factory, and explains to the bank manager that he intends to build safe cars which don't meet the legal standard. He explains how the old bureaucrat was a short sighted idiot, and the new one is a slimy coward, and how his design is a huge improvement for everybody, and the environment.
The bank manager knows he'll never see a return, so he wisely denies the loan.

Your average cop is a nice guy, who would love to see a reduction in the road toll. Many dedicate their whole careers to that end; but they're not in the bank manager's office when he declines the loan, and don't see the products which are never made as a result of their willingness to enforce the law.
I find it morbidly ironic to see policemen on TV at the scene of an accident, lecturing us about personal responsibility, with no comprehension that they themselves are the only reason we're driving heavy, unresponsive tanks.

One final example;

Janet isn't ready to be a mum, she'd also prefer to avoid stretch marks.
The Smiths are infertile, and would love to adopt a baby.
Janet would continue the pregnancy, and hand the baby over to the Smiths for $10,000.
The Smiths would readily pay Janet to carry the baby to term and let them adopt him.
If this transaction went ahead, Janet would be better off, the Smiths would be better off, and the baby would be raised in a loving home, instead of being dismembered in the womb.
While he's not in a position to agree to the transaction, lets pencil him in as a 'yes'

A transaction which benefits all parties should be a fairly frequent occurrence, and it would be, if only the parties to the transaction were involved in it; but lets not forget the uninvited, ignorant bureaucrat, with his good intentions and his obedient enforcers.

He has decreed that a baby is priceless, and legislated a price tag of zero dollars, which translates as either 'priceless' or 'worthless', depending on the reader.

I'd love to see Janet attempt to sell him in defiance of the law, forcing the police to arrest her and question the validity of the law. I'd love to see the Smiths attempt to buy him in violation of the law, prompting the police to ask themselves tough questions about their role; but none of that happens.
Janet has him killed, the Smiths age and die childless, and good men proudly wear the uniform without ever gazing in the mirror long enough to see how ugly it is.

When a man takes up that badge, he takes on full responsibility for all of the consequences of all the laws.
He may be quick to claim credit for preventing bad things, but he prevents a whole lot of good things too.

Have a fantastic day